There isn’t any wiggle room in Buddhism … the deliberate knowing killing another being is just that, and will have its results. The mosquito in this re-becoming, may well have been a human in a previous birth….

I concur.

The only thing to do is to regret form the depth of one's heart, openly admit one's misdeed, practice the teachings as never did before and consequently abstain from any further killing in the future.

The worst thing to do is to justify or seek justifications.

kind regards

The idea that a mosquito has been a human being in a previous birth, or that a mosquito has been a mosquito, or a human being a human being in previous births... is completely at odds with the concept of Punarbhava as found in the Suttas.
It is in fact a variation of the idea of an atta.
The kammic implications of intentional killing are not made more clear by an over simplistic presentation of kamma vipaka and punarbhava. Neither are the moral aspects which underpin the First Precept. And it is vital that the morality which underpin the precepts is understood in their complexity. Not reduced to easily digested formulae.
The subtle teachings of the Buddha are ill served by reducing them to nursery tales.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

The idea... is completely at odds with the concept of Punarbhava as found in the Suttas.

Why?

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me. "This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans."The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans."The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs... - SN 15.13

To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo

With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

It seems from this sutta and others that the Buddha had no qualms about speaking of rebirth in mundane terms. If we have been goats, sheep, cows, as the Buddha clearly and explicitly states, why not a mosquito?

To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo

With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

Because Bodom what the Buddha is describing is a series of arisings due to kamma vipika....not a discrete entity which becomes another discrete entity.
There may indeed be kammic implications in intentional killing...but that does not mean that one sentient being BECOMES another sentient being. Rather that conditions arise in accord with kamma , and that those conditions may be both impossible to predict and varied.
This is not simply a matter of semantics. It goes to the heart of the Buddhas actual teaching on Punarbhava that sets it apart from the ideas of Hindu reincarnation.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

bodom wrote:It seems from this sutta and others that the Buddha had no qualms about speaking of rebirth in mundane terms. If we have been goats, sheep, cows, as the Buddha clearly and explicitly states, why not a mosquito?

We havent. and he doesnt.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Sanghamitta wrote:Because Bodom what the Buddha is describing is a series of arisings due to kamma vipika....not a discrete entity which becomes another discrete entity.
There may indeed be kammic implications in intentional killing...but that does not mean that one sentient being BECOMES another sentient being. Rather that conditions arise in accord with kamma , and that those conditions may be both impossible to predict and varied.
This is not simply a matter of semantics. It goes to the heart of the Buddhas actual teaching on Punarbhava that sets it apart from the ideas of Hindu reincarnation.

Right you are. Thank you for clarifying your position.

To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo

With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

There isn’t any wiggle room in Buddhism … the deliberate knowing killing another being is just that, and will have its results. The mosquito in this re-becoming, may well have been a human in a previous birth….

I concur.

The only thing to do is to regret form the depth of one's heart, openly admit one's misdeed, practice the teachings as never did before and consequently abstain from any further killing in the future.

The worst thing to do is to justify or seek justifications.

kind regards

The idea that a mosquito has been a human being in a previous birth, or that a mosquito has been a mosquito, or a human being a human being in previous births... is completely at odds with the concept of Punarbhava as found in the Suttas.
It is in fact a variation of the idea of an atta.

No. cooran has just expressed what the Buddha taught applying conventional language.
"Atta" is just your projection when reading those words.
Not inherently different but also not inherently identical but in conventional terms the difference between "human being in a previous birth" and "mosquito now" is not the same difference as the difference between two different persons now.

Sanghamitta wrote:Because Bodom what the Buddha is describing is a series of arisings due to kamma vipika....not a discrete entity which becomes another discrete entity.

Again I concur.

Now do you infer that you need not care about your conduct since you are neither an entity in this present life nor there is an entity in the succeeding existence that has to deal with the consequences of your actions?

When you have any sensation, it is the result of receptors in your tissue. By "receptors," I mean actual tiny physical objects embedded in your tissue, that can be all kinds of funny shapes. And their specific shape and chemical make-up is what determines their function. So, for example, pressure-receptors are shaped like little bubbles, so that when your skin is compressed, the contents of the bubbles is also compressed, triggering a reaction which is detected by a neuron (receptors have neurons connected to them to communicate that reception has occurred). Receptors for temperature occur because their shape is altered by temperature and your taste & smell receptors are like little keyholes which only certain molecules fit into (sugars fit into sweet receptors, salts fit into salty receptors, etc.).

Pain receptors -- called nocireceptors -- are receptors that transmit a signal when tissue has been damaged (literally drastically altered chemically or physically). When you feel pain, it travels up nerve fibers to your spine, travels up to the brain, and there, the pain is registered. Emotional anguish (which you may feel because of physical pain or just all by itself) is governed by the limbic system of the brain, called the "emotional center".

So, you understand me so far?

OK, now imagine you're an insect:
-You have no nocireceptors that detect pain
-Even if you did, you have no spine (insects are invertebrates) to carry the signal to the brain
-And even if you had a spine, your brain is not sophisticated enough to experience something like "emotional anguish".

Instead, insect intelligence is mechanical, like a venus fly-trap. When a fly lands in a venus fly-trap, it has receptors that detect something is there, causing the plant's leaves to close. But would anybody here say that a venus fly-trap is "aware", that trimming its leaves causes "suffering"?

Research repeatedly shows how insects are capable of some intelligent behaviours scientists previously thought was unique to larger animals. Honeybees, for example, can
count, categorise similar objects like dogs or human faces, understand 'same' and 'different', and differentiate between shapes that are symmetrical and asymmetrical.This must

...Much 'advanced' thinking can actually be done with very limited neuron numbers. Computer modelling shows that even consciousness can be generated with very small neural circuits, which could in theory easily fit into an insect brain. In fact, the models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness.

Also, "suffering" does not necessarily equal "physical pain". If that were the case, instead of seeking enlightenment, we might as well strive for rebirth as some form of life that lacks nocireceptors.

Research repeatedly shows how insects are capable of some intelligent behaviours scientists previously thought was unique to larger animals. Honeybees, for example, can
count, categorise similar objects like dogs or human faces, understand 'same' and 'different', and differentiate between shapes that are symmetrical and asymmetrical.This must

...Much 'advanced' thinking can actually be done with very limited neuron numbers. Computer modelling shows that even consciousness can be generated with very small neural circuits, which could in theory easily fit into an insect brain. In fact, the models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness.

Also, "suffering" does not necessarily equal "physical pain". If that were the case, instead of seeking enlightenment, we might as well strive for rebirth as some form of life that lacks nocireceptors.

Science has also shown the same of plants and bacteria, though, too. Microbial intelligence is an example that springs to mind which is readily found on Google.

The only thing to do is to regret form the depth of one's heart, openly admit one's misdeed, practice the teachings as never did before and consequently abstain from any further killing in the future.

The worst thing to do is to justify or seek justifications.

kind regards[/quote]
The idea that a mosquito has been a human being in a previous birth, or that a mosquito has been a mosquito, or a human being a human being in previous births... is completely at odds with the concept of Punarbhava as found in the Suttas.
It is in fact a variation of the idea of an atta.[/quote]
No. cooran has just expressed what the Buddha taught applying conventional language.
"Atta" is just your projection when reading those words.
Not inherently different but also not inherently identical but in conventional terms the difference between "human being in a previous birth" and "mosquito now" is not the same difference as the difference between two different persons now.

Sanghamitta wrote:Because Bodom what the Buddha is describing is a series of arisings due to kamma vipika....not a discrete entity which becomes another discrete entity.

Again I concur.

Now do you infer that you need not care about your conduct since you are neither an entity in this present life nor there is an entity in the succeeding existence that has to deal with the consequences of your actions?

Kind regards[/quote]
T Mingyur I understand that yoiu are a student of Tibetan Buddhism, and as such I see little point in dialogue. We could perhaps find a form of words that could bridge this present wee gap...but there would still yawn the giant chasm of Tulkus , Docetic Buddhas, " Buddha Nature ", the Trikaya doctrine etc etc.
I will leave it there and wish you well.

Valerie.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

When you have any sensation, it is the result of receptors in your tissue. By "receptors," I mean actual tiny physical objects embedded in your tissue, that can be all kinds of funny shapes. And their specific shape and chemical make-up is what determines their function. So, for example, pressure-receptors are shaped like little bubbles, so that when your skin is compressed, the contents of the bubbles is also compressed, triggering a reaction which is detected by a neuron (receptors have neurons connected to them to communicate that reception has occurred). Receptors for temperature occur because their shape is altered by temperature and your taste & smell receptors are like little keyholes which only certain molecules fit into (sugars fit into sweet receptors, salts fit into salty receptors, etc.).

Pain receptors -- called nocireceptors -- are receptors that transmit a signal when tissue has been damaged (literally drastically altered chemically or physically). When you feel pain, it travels up nerve fibers to your spine, travels up to the brain, and there, the pain is registered. Emotional anguish (which you may feel because of physical pain or just all by itself) is governed by the limbic system of the brain, called the "emotional center".

So, you understand me so far?

OK, now imagine you're an insect:
-You have no nocireceptors that detect pain
-Even if you did, you have no spine (insects are invertebrates) to carry the signal to the brain
-And even if you had a spine, your brain is not sophisticated enough to experience something like "emotional anguish".

Instead, insect intelligence is mechanical, like a venus fly-trap. When a fly lands in a venus fly-trap, it has receptors that detect something is there, causing the plant's leaves to close. But would anybody here say that a venus fly-trap is "aware", that trimming its leaves causes "suffering"?

It is irrelevant whether a being suffers when being killed or not...... to all beings life is precious and we have no right to take that life away.

Sanghamitta wrote:T Mingyur I understand that yoiu are a student of Tibetan Buddhism, and as such I see little point in dialogue. We could perhaps find a form of words that could bridge this present wee gap...but there would still yawn the giant chasm of Tulkus , Docetic Buddhas, " Buddha Nature ", the Trikaya doctrine etc etc.
I will leave it there and wish you well.

Valerie.

That's okay. Although none of the items you are listing actually directly touch the issue under discussion and the concepts of "Tulkus" and "Buddha nature" are irrelevant for my personal practice we possibly do not share the same kind of "middle way" view.
Best wishes for your progress on the path.